Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has advanced reasoning capabilities in multimodal large language models. However, existing methods typically treat visual inputs as deterministic, overlooking the perceptual ambiguity inherent to the visual modality. Consequently, they fail to distinguish whether a model’s uncertainty stems from complex reasoning or ambiguous perception, preventing the targeted allocation of exploration or learning signals. To address this gap, we introduce DUPL, a dual-uncertainty guided policy learning approach for multimodal RLVR that quantifies and leverages both perceptual uncertainty (via symmetric KL divergence) and output uncertainty (via policy entropy) to guide policy updates. By establishing an uncertainty-driven feedback loop and employing a dynamic branch prioritization mechanism, DUPL recalibrates the policy advantage to focus learning on states with high perceptual or decisional ambiguity, enabling effective targeted exploration beyond passive data augmentation. Evaluated on diverse multimodal reasoning benchmarks spanning mathematical and general domains, DUPL achieves solid gains. It improves Qwen2.5-VL accuracy by up to 12.3% (3B) and 7.9% (7B), and Qwen3-VL-Instruct by up to 10.7% (4B) and 12.4% (8B), consistently outperforming GRPO, while seamlessly generalizing to alternative algorithms (DAPO, +6.5% avg) and architectures (LLaVA-OneVision-1.5, +4.7% avg). These results demonstrate that DUPL is an effective and generalizable approach for multimodal RLVR.

Event annotation is important for identifying, monitoring, and understanding sociological trends. Although expert annotators set the gold standard, they are expensive and inefficient. While state-of-the-art NLP models are an attractive alternative, they are often evaluated on standalone subtasks rather than entire workflows. Thus, we evaluate a holistic workflow that summarizes news with event coreference resolution and argument extraction in three modes: AI-only, AI assistance, and human only. Although AI’s recall is seven times higher than the tf-idf baseline at coreference resolution, it is far from replacing experts. However, experts adopt AI-extracted arguments 60% of the time, reducing extraction time by 25%. Our code and data are in https://github.com/Obertura777/gtd-data.

As LLM agents act across personal applications, web browsers, and other interfaces, their reusable skill libraries can scale to thousands of skills. This scale introduces two challenges. First, loading the full library saturates the context window, driving up token costs, hallucination, and latency. Second, semantic retrieval surfaces topically relevant skills but can miss upstream and downstream prerequisite skills, creating a prerequisite gap that leaves the retrieved bundle insufficient for execution. We present Graph-of-Skills (GoS), an inference-time structural retrieval layer for large skill libraries. GoS constructs an executable skill graph offline from skill packages, then retrieves a bounded, dependency-aware bundle through hybrid semantic-lexical seeding, reverse-aware Personalized PageRank, and context-budgeted hydration. Across SkillsBench and ALFWorld, with three model families (Claude Sonnet 4.5, MiniMax M2.7, and GPT-5.2 Codex), GoS attains the highest average reward in all six model-benchmark blocks, at a fraction of the token cost of loading the full library. On SkillsBench with GPT-5.2 Codex it raises average reward by 7.0 absolute points over full skill loading, a 25.6% relative gain, while cutting total tokens by 56.7%. Ablations isolate the mechanism: replacing reverse traversal with forward propagation costs 9.1 reward points, a larger loss than removing the graph altogether. The gain thus comes from traversing dependencies backwards, not from graph diffusion as such. A budget-matched retrieval study holding seeding, reranking, hydration, and context budget fixed reproduces the same ordering, with dependency-pair co-recovery falling from 0.654 to 0.362. Code is available at https://github.com/davidliuk/graph-of-skills.

Self-evolving has emerged as a key paradigm for improving foundational models such as Large Language Models (LLMs) and Vision Language Models (VLMs) with minimal human intervention. While recent approaches have demonstrated that LLM agents can self-evolve from scratch with little to no data, VLMs introduce an additional visual modality that typically requires at least some seed data, such as images, to bootstrap the self-evolution process. In this work, we present Multi-model Multi-modal Zero (MM-Zero), the first RL-based framework to achieve zero-data self-evolution for VLM reasoning. Moving beyond prior dual-role (Proposer and Solver) setups, MM-Zero introduces a multi-role self-evolving training framework comprising three specialized roles: a Proposer that generates structured visual concepts and formulates questions; a Coder that translates these concepts into executable code (e.g., Python, SVG) to render visual images; and a Solver that performs multimodal reasoning over the generated visual content. All three roles are initialized from the same base model and trained using Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), with carefully designed reward mechanisms that integrate execution feedback, visual verification, and difficulty balancing. Our experiments show that MM-Zero improves VLM reasoning performance across a wide range of multimodal benchmarks. MM-Zero establishes a scalable path toward self-evolving multi-model systems for multimodal models, extending the frontier of self-improvement beyond the conventional two-model paradigm.

Command-line coding agents (e.g., Claude Code, Gemini CLI) can already read and write files and sustain long sessions, yet end-to-end research still fragments across chat tools, IDEs, terminals, and writing environments, and the decisions that make it auditable are rarely preserved. We present **Dr. Claw**, an open-source workspace that wraps existing coding-agent executors in a *controllable* and *auditable* human-in-the-loop workflow rather than introducing another autonomous agent. Persistent state objects, a reusable skill library, and multi-executor coordination link human decisions to AI execution, turning planning, execution, and writing into one traceable, recoverable loop. We demonstrate Dr. Claw through an interactive three-view scenario and a failure-recovery walkthrough, and evaluate it against a bare command-line agent sharing the same backend executor, so the comparison contrasts the whole orchestration layer (task graph, state objects, and skill library) with the agent it wraps. Holding the executor fixed, Dr. Claw scores higher on research completeness while persisting an auditable, recoverable process trail. Demo access: repository https://github.com/OpenLAIR/dr-claw, released under AGPL-3.0 with GPL-3.0 upstream components.

Large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4, Claude and LLaMA are routinely used to evaluate long-form text generated by language models. We study the ability of these models to identify low quality texts, an increasingly rare subset of output which is of great interest to pinpoint during development. We present experiments with a panel of LLM judges, and crowd-sourced approximations of reference judgments. Pinpointing sub-par outputs is a difficult task for both models and crowdworkers, with models doing overall better. Moreover, unlike findings in prior work on factoid question answering, panels of cheaper models do not agree as well with high quality developer judgments of low quality as panels of frontier models. We present qualitative and quantitative analysis of the relative strengths of models in the panel, gleaning insights why they yield better results over a single model.

A common use of NLP is to facilitate the understanding of large document collections, with models based on Large Language Models (LLMs) replacing probabilistic topic models. Yet the effectiveness of LLM-based approaches in real-world applications remains under explored. This study measures the knowledge users acquire with topic models—including traditional, unsupervised and supervised LLM- based approaches—on two datasets. While LLM-based methods generate more human- readable topics and show higher average win probabilities than traditional models for data exploration, they produce overly generic topics for domain-specific datasets that do not easily allow users to learn much about the documents. Adding human supervision to LLM-based topic models improves data exploration by addressing hallucination and genericity but requires more human efforts. In contrast, traditional models like Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) remain effective for exploration but are less user-friendly. This paper provides best practices—there is no one right model, the choice of models is situation-specific—and suggests potential improvements for scalable LLM- based topic models.

Automating the creation of scientific diagrams from academic papers can significantly streamline the development of tutorials, presentations, and posters, thereby saving time and accelerating the process. Current text-to-image models (Rombach et al., 2022a; Belouadi et al., 2023) struggle with generating accurate and visually appealing diagrams from long-context inputs. We propose SciDoc2Diagram, a task that extracts relevant information from scientific papers and generates diagrams, along with a benchmarking dataset, SciDoc2DiagramBench. We develop a multi-step pipeline SciDoc2Diagrammer that generates diagrams based on user intentions using intermediate code generation. We observed that initial diagram drafts were often incomplete or unfaithful to the source, leading us to develop SciDoc2Diagrammer-Multi-Aspect-Feedback (MAF), a refinement strategy that significantly enhances factual correctness and visual appeal and outperforms existing models on both automatic and human judgement.

Question answering (QA) can only make progress if we know if an answer is correct, but current answer correctness (AC) metrics struggle with verbose, free-form answers from large language models (LLMs). There are two challenges with current short-form QA evaluations: a lack of diverse styles of evaluation data and an over-reliance on expensive and slow LLMs. LLM-based scorers correlate better with humans, but this expensive task has only been tested on limited QA datasets. We rectify these issues by providing rubrics and datasets for evaluating machine QA adopted from the Trivia community. We also propose an efficient, and interpretable QA evaluation that is more stable than an exact match and neural methods (BERTScore).

Topic models are a popular tool for understanding text collections, but their evaluation has been a point of contention. Automated evaluation metrics such as coherence are often used, however, their validity has been questioned for neural topic models (NTMs) and can overlook a model’s benefits in real-world applications. To this end, we conduct the first evaluation of neural, supervised and classical topic models in an interactive task-based setting. We combine topic models with a classifier and test their ability to help humans conduct content analysis and document annotation. From simulated, real user and expert pilot studies, the Contextual Neural Topic Model does the best on cluster evaluation metrics and human evaluations; however, LDA is competitive with two other NTMs under our simulated experiment and user study results, contrary to what coherence scores suggest. We show that current automated metrics do not provide a complete picture of topic modeling capabilities, but the right choice of NTMs can be better than classical models on practical tasks.

We examine whether large language models (LLMs) exhibit race- and gender-based name discrimination in hiring decisions, similar to classic findings in the social sciences (Bertrand and Mullainathan, 2004). We design a series of templatic prompts to LLMs to write an email to a named job applicant informing them of a hiring decision. By manipulating the applicant’s first name, we measure the effect of perceived race, ethnicity, and gender on the probability that the LLM generates an acceptance or rejection email. We find that the hiring decisions of LLMs in many settings are more likely to favor White applicants over Hispanic applicants. In aggregate, the groups with the highest and lowest acceptance rates respectively are masculine White names and masculine Hispanic names. However, the comparative acceptance rates by group vary under different templatic settings, suggesting that LLMs’ race- and gender-sensitivity may be idiosyncratic and prompt-sensitive.

A common limitation of diagnostic tests for detecting social biases in NLP models is that they may only detect stereotypic associations that are pre-specified by the designer of the test. Since enumerating all possible problematic associations is infeasible, it is likely these tests fail to detect biases that are present in a model but not pre-specified by the designer. To address this limitation, we propose SODAPOP (SOcial bias Discovery from Answers about PeOPle), an approach for automatic social bias discovery in social commonsense question-answering. The SODAPOP pipeline generates modified instances from the Social IQa dataset (Sap et al., 2019b) by (1) substituting names associated with different demographic groups, and (2) generating many distractor answers from a masked language model. By using a social commonsense model to score the generated distractors, we are able to uncover the model’s stereotypic associations between demographic groups and an open set of words. We also test SODAPOP on debiased models and show the limitations of multiple state-of-the-art debiasing algorithms.